Myths and distortions: Response to “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”
When the facts don’t suit your agenda, distort them. Worked for the neoconservatives (pseudoconservatives) in their pursuit for a conflict with Iraq and now with Iran. In the same tradition, a “progressive” website made the following claims in an attempt to slander Ron Paul:
“Rep. Paul is not a liberal, protesting against the War in Iraq. He is an isolationist, who seeks to keep America’s business at home.”
Wrong. Non-interventionist. This means he advocates trading with other nations and staying out of their internal conflicts. It doesn’t mean we ignore the world.
“Rep. Paul is not socially liberal, but economically conservative, as some have claimed. He is an old-style Conservative, through and through. “
Wrong, he is mostly socially liberal AND economically conservative. Otherwise known as a classical liberal.
I suspect spreading disinformation about Ron Paul is in response to his growing numbers of liberals, conservatives, and independents who find his message of liberty appealing.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama are betraying their own constituency by backing out of any promises to end the war. If anyone is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, it is these fake liberals who are looking more like pro-war neoconservatives everyday.
To clear up misconceptions about Ron Paul:
He may not like gay marriage, but he believes the contracts between two people should be enforced by the government. That means if a church wants to marry two gay people, Ron Paul believes the government should honor that agreement, and that heterosexual marriages should hold no special privilege.
He may detest abortion, but he believes such matters should be decided by the individual states and not the federal government. (Which means some states will allow abortion and some won’t. And perhaps it is better this way until we understand human consciousness better).
He opposes affirmative action, because he wants to treat people like individuals, not as arbitrary groups of people with special privileges, regardless of their skin color. He believes treating people like individuals and allowing them to exercise their liberties is a better way to achieve equality.
He strongly opposes the war on drugs, because prohibition causes more problems than it solves. There are only two democratic candidates who oppose the war on drugs: Gravel and questionably Kucinich. After all, should the government put you in jail for consuming Burger King food and putting yourself at risk? Why should it be any different with the personal use of drugs? Furthermore, the FDA prevents many useful medications from being sold in the market, forcing people to seek other alternatives abroad, increasing the cost of medicines, and sometimes leaving patients with no options.
He strongly opposes the Iraq war, on the grounds that we have no right to start wars of aggression. On the other hand, we have seen that Hillary and Obama are very likely to pursue an unnecessary conflict with Iran and start a new conflict in Sudan, as if we hadn’t learned from Vietnam and Iraq, already, and despite the fact that the majority of voters want out of Iraq.
Ron Paul doesn’t arbitrarily choose issues when it is convenient, like the majority of Republicans and Democrats. He goes by the principle of individual liberty, which means his stances on most issues are consistent and predictable, instead of progressively changing based on the whim of lobby groups.
I know it’s threatening to see Ron Paul earn more in donations in seven days than John Edwards earned in ten days. I know it’s threatening to see that liberals and conservatives are finding good reasons to support Ron Paul. But instead of misinforming voters, try to engage in honest discussion.